ReviewTechnology in cancer research & treatment
Electrochemotherapy for Anorectal Tumors: A Narrative Literature Review.
Review in Technology in cancer research & treatment. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This narrative review explores the potential role of electrochemotherapy (ECT) in treating anorectal tumors, focusing on its effectiveness, feasibility, and associated toxicities. ECT, which combines chemotherapy with the application of an electric field to enhance drug uptake by tumor cells, has shown promise as a local treatment, particularly in cases where conventional therapies such as radiotherapy have been exhausted or are unsuitable. The review, conducted according to SANRA guidelines, included 18 studies, on ECT in anorectal tumors, ranging from preclinical trials in dogs to case reports and clinical studies in humans. The findings indicate that ECT can achieve high tumor overall response rates (70-100%) with minimal side effects, offering benefits such as tumor reduction and preserved organ function. These results highlight the potential of ECT to provide not only tumor reduction but also the preservation of vital organ function with a relatively low toxicity profile. However, further comparative research is necessary to substantiate its role as a standard therapeutic option. Moreover, the evidence is limited by significant heterogeneity across studies, small sample sizes, and a lack of comparative research with other local treatments like radiotherapy and cryosurgery. Consequently, while ECT appears to be a promising option, particularly for palliative care or in a neoadjuvant setting, it cannot yet be recommended as a standard treatment. Future research should focus on larger, more robust studies with standardized outcomes and explore the potential synergy between ECT and other therapies to establish its place in the treatment of anorectal tumors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.